1: Noone deserves death as a result of ignorance. 2: Sometimes, to defend that which you love, you might have to end someone who will not stop on their own, but it's rarely the only or best choice. I defer that judgement to the people actually in the situation, though. 3: It isn't wise to advertise your willingness to kill others, unless by doing so you prevent killing from happening. It tends to attract trouble, or at least puts your enemies guard up. 4: It especially isn't wise to list specific circumstances under which you'll kill, on this forum, because that's how people and forums get into trouble. But I'm not a moderator, I'm not giving a command. I'm expressing a concern, a fear if you will, of seeing a fellow poster or this whole board get into difficulty.

Andrew,Thanks, you did a wise thing. Though I don't think it was "horribly" off topic, it just grew from that topic, as death grows from birth. But sure it deserves a thread of its own.

In my opinion:

1- I don't understand. Please clarify.

2- Killing to defend what I love stems from selfishness. I may die for what I love but I may not kill. Loving and killing fit in different categories. But surviving and killing sit face to face; I may kill to defend what I need to survive, and I will succeed to kill if I have the fitness to survive.

3- I don't know about advertising, I don't market. But I let others know my temperament. As a matter of fact others have a natural right to know the temperament of what they encounter. Nature doesn't lie.

Mt. Refugee:I haven't mentioned it yet, but it inspires me SO MUCH to have you posting from Iran. Thanks for the conversations. I don't really have a lot to comment on the specific topic in this thread but I wanted to say about this...

mountain refugee:

In my opinion:

1- I don't understand. Please clarify.

This really touches my heart that you asked for clarification instead of assuming and moving forward. I get moved by funny things, I know, but I just adore seeing it when folks here take that breath and ask for more info before responding, and you did that.

Thanks!

As far as a policy of self-censorship when it comes to talking about killing other human beings, I don't know. I don't advocate it, and I respect the need for self-defense. I'll happily hear anyone out who has concerns about this. In the end I only care that we have a safe place to have these conversations. If it could become unsafe, or we lose it, due to certain topics, then I know we've crossed that line.

Willem, My oddity in my society used to frustrate me so badly till I found you guys down here and I felt right at home. You inspired me too, so thank you!

Victor you wrote "Survival of the fittest is a pretty sketchy thing to base things on. It has led to many really wierd and fucked up regimes through out human history."

Survival of the fittest leads to nothing but the survival of the fittest. Those fucked up (I see you use that word!) regimes used the name of the theory,and not the thing itself, to their benefit. Rulers say they kill to keep the peace, so Peace should lead to fucked up regimes too, ha?

And you wrote "Is there a diffrerence between an individual operating from a basis of fear and a nation that operates from that place?"

Man, I'm talking about a natural situation, where you fight a parallel fight. No swords, no guns, no bombs; No horse or jet; No police or army; Just two men fighting "personally" for their own lives, not for a Nation or a God or an Ideology or whatsoever they kill people for. In such a fight, the fittest one, The one who wrestles or kicks or shoots better will survive. And let's remember that in such a situation fear cannot remain. They don't fight because they fear anything, rather they fear nothing. The one who fears wouldn't fight a parallel fight, rather he would flee. Did I get you right?

Finally, I just recalled a joke I once read in a 14th century Persian manuscript. It's translation may not make you laugh, butdelivers its message clearly.

"A soldier went to a war and returned without lifting a finger. People asked about it and he replied "I swear to god that nobody among the enemies knew me and I knew nobody among them so I found no reason to fight."

Let's abide to Nature and don't let the ideas make us sad or angry when there is no reason. We all have shed tears in the past for our unfortunate sisters and brothers among humans and animals and trees and rocks and we will shed more in time, so if we find calm days when we feel like communicating, let's be happy to have like-minded companions. MR

"Those fucked up (I see you use that word!)"Sure I do, I also eat food most of the time, but sometimes I fast and it does me good. Ha ha.

I understand the need to fight. I've had to do it.

I just am of the belief that my conciousness is here on earth inhabiting this body for a better reason than "survival of the fittest". If that is really what it all comes down to then I will be happy to find out what lies beyond this world and leave this one to the fittest.

Is there a diffrerence between an individual operating from a basis of fear and a nation that operates from that place?

The larger the group the larger the evil it can perpetrate. Organized religion is the root of all evil. Nationalism is the most evil religion yet. Or at lease equal to Mohamedism. Or we will see. In group action the ones with the lowest regard for life have the advantage.

An individual killing in self defense could be acting out of self love but groups have no feelings only the individuals who make up the group do and they could all have different motives.

When we don't define an expression, we can say anything we like about it. Survival of the fittest as an expression by itself, suspending in mid-air, has no meaning, or has any meaning anybody likes to attach to it. Should we ask fittest in relation to what? Or should we call whatever crawls on earth the fittest, by itself, absolutely. In that article the observation seems true, but that doesn't contradict the survival of the fittest. Sure in every generation there will be strong and weak individuals, because birth doesn't mean survival. So when the criterion of the fitness comes, which could be running from a predator, enduring a hard winter, fighting for food and mate... the weak ones won't survive (and the criterion may never come in their lifetime). Time is not a linear movement "towards" a definite goal ( the Hegelian bullshit, the way civ sees the world). If we see Time this way then survival of the fittest had to be an event in the past and now every single cearture had to be fit in every criterion! But survival of the fittest is a natural law (at least in human mind) like the laws of physics, not an event, that means it happens every single moment and will continue to happen as long as there is an eye to look at the world. Time is eternity (it moves towards nowhere), becuase change is eternal, therefore fitness is not an absolute "event". As the enviroment changes, fitness changes too. I'm sorry my english is weak and I cant explain myself better than this.

And who said life is equal to survival? But survival is necessary in order to live! The fits have the privilege to live and know that they live. And if somebody looks for something beyond life, a reason to live, then he or she better stay in civ and forget about rewilding.

I agree, a defintion of "fittest" is probably necessary for a discussion about the concept of "survival of the fittest". Fittest in what way? Toughest? Smartest? Most ruthless? Highest sperm count? Best negotiator?

What about noncompetetive survival skills? How about most compassionate? Most generous? Most cooperative? Most altruistic? Do these attributes constitute fitness for survival? Including the word "most" there is kind of an oxymoron isn't it?

My reaction is directly to this statement."...and I will succeed to kill if I have the fitness to survive."

I have trouble with this one too. Not sure I understand what you mean exactly."And if somebody looks for something beyond life, a reason to live, then he or she better stay in civ and forget about rewilding."

Does that mean if I believe I have a spirit that can exist outside my body or that other non human entities have spirit, I am somehow outside of the Rewild tribe? (A serious question not rhetorical)

Eh. The whole 'talking about iit" thing with me, stems from being someplace where having the obvious ability to defend oneself gets one into unneccesary trouble. Whatever way I am prepared to defend myself, I keep it to myself, because my enemies lack of knowledge is one more defense. This is my personal decision, though. I mention it more as a matter of sharing.

Way more important: Why not kill the ignorant.

Ignorance IN AND OF ITSELF is not a crime. Everyone is born ignorant, and must learn. Do we judge a child poorly for not knowing what an adult knows? Ignorance can be fixed. A person, like any other life, is intrinsically valuable. A person who lives out of sorts with the rest of life out of ignorance can be taught to live a better way, and so become more valuable to the whole than a carcass would be.

Now, sometimes you have to put someone own because they would do more harm in the future. I'm definately Not saying that killing is always wrong. I am saying that every situation should be judged, and judged as though all life was valuable for it's own sake. I'm saying that a POLICY of killing is wrong. Death shouldn't be automated, not even (especially not) in the mind.

All pretty words from someone who's never had to make a life or death decision. Take them for what they are.

Incidentally, I feel survival of the fittest is the one of the most misunderstood concepts people perpetually bring up. It's not that the fit survive. I mean, it's not the biggest, or the strongest, or the smartest, or the one with the highest sperm count that survives. Rather, Survival defines fitness. People get it backwards, thinking "I will become more fit, so that I will survive." No, you survive, therefore you are more fit. Taken in that regard, fitness means "survives", and "survival of the fittest" is a truism, meaning that which survives, survives.

If the human race decided that to alleviate the problem of overpopulation they would allow only 1 in so many [a hundred, a thousand] the ability to reproduce, how would you prefer that minority chosen?

Randomly? A lottery?

Or would, considering you had a vote in the matter, that the matter had a democratic slant, you vote that those who represented the highest rankings according to a set of fittness tests worthy of breeding?

Everyone would have the same rights to influence the development of the meager smattering of children. These children would have many parents other than their biological ones.

The interests of diversity - musical talent, intelligence, athletic ability - all forms of creativity and excellence, according to a standard decided and accepted by all- would have representation in this model.

In such a situation, do those who exhibit the most productive, successful traits among us have more of a right to pass on their genetics than those who have thrived weakly, perhaps only by way of the buttresses of civilization?

In the face of such a winnowing, would you want an obscenely obsese, television addict, beauty dereft, essentially thoughtless trailer park denizen to have the same chance to pass on their DNA as an Einstein?

I smell a speculative fiction plot... sounds elitist, however, I would like to hear an arguement against "the breeding of the fittest". Such a solution would seem like the killing of potential children, yet it would help to ensure the survival of the human race on a whole, so it would save those same children from the apparently doomed fate they would meet had they the chance to live.

The 'breeding of the fittest"? Richard--this game or whatever you describe deeply disturbs me. Eugenics creeps me out. >

Who says what makes one fittest? This represents the ultimate domination of cultural memes over actual living flesh--us.

Anybody seen the movie Gattaca? I love the sci fi that asks the juiciest (scariest)questions. The premise: in some future world the tyrannical powers have taken away our one of our most treasured gifts, in my view, "random" collaboration with the universe. Parents must plan out all children with the blessing of the DNA police.

The movie's tagline: "There is no gene for the human spirit". I think people would turn into flavorless hothouse tomatoes, idiotic yappy inbred fancy-pants twinkie-brain dogs with no wits. . . oh jeez, has it started already?

On another note, the other day someone told me about a book, Survival of the Sickest. At first glance, it sounds goofy to me, but I don't know much about that one yet, just throwing it out there. Anybody read it?

[sorry, tangent, please follow detour signs back to the meat of the thread]

If the human race decided that to alleviate the problem of overpopulation they would allow only 1 in so many [a hundred, a thousand] the ability to reproduce, how would you prefer that minority chosen?

Dude, has the human race ever decided on one thing?

I think the big shot "Takers" and the real genocidal ones would have it (everybody able to agree on one thing) that way, but it hasn't happened so far and it probably won't anytime soon, no?

The 'breeding of the fittest"? Richard--this game or whatever you describe deeply disturbs me. Eugenics creeps me out. >

Yes. It perturbs me too. I enjoy perturbations.I also tend to advocate the devil.

Who says what makes one fittest?

I mentioned nothing to do with innate potential - I honestly believe everyone has the capacity for their own highly individualized brand of strength and that it would seem loony and ludacris to offer any competitive comparison in regards to strength, saying one person is on a whole undeniably better than another.

however, we can see that some make good jet fighter pilots, some do not (and interestingly enough video game champions score higher than top gun aces on flight simulators), some have immensely agile creative thinking muscles, some win on jeopardy, some only have one X chromosone without an additonal X or Y, some can play that Simon game all day, some can solve a rubix cube in 30 seconds... we call some virtuosos and wunderkind and born leaders and others we don't.

hopefully we treat them the same, not only based on what we can get from them.

I remember reading somewhere... Ishcon in fact... about a study which observed mothers who had anxiety issues during birth producing babies with gross abnormalities, gaps and warps, in the DNA strand... it seems plausible that the stress of civ could mar the integrity of the human blueprint. The presentor offered no proof when I pressed, so I wouldn't place to much stock in the validity of said recounting.

To put it another way, if you had 1000 plants, and you could only reproduce a few, would you choose the ones with the thickest stems, the fattest buds, the most extensive root systems, the most vibrant flowers? Not to say they have some definiable and quanitifiable quality marking them as superior plants, just that they would seem the most logical choice. to me anyway.

Dude, has the human race ever decided on one thing?

Yeah. It is totally implausible. Although we might all nod in agreement that we should have taken some countermeasure if doomsday ever arrives, assuming we would have enough time for reflection.